Hi Lingzhi, I'm just curious why you removed the access date here; I thought we were supposed to include them? Have I missed something? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe it's the script in my User:Lingzhi/common.css that displays Citation errors. It said that one has an access date but no "url= " parameter. Besides, aren't JSTOR links permanent? There were a few more citation errors on the page, but I didn't alter them. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so if it's a permanent link (jstor, doi, etc) they don't need a pen acces date? That would make sense. Thanks – you learn something new every day! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Bounder: that script I mentioned will throw out an error whether it's a permanent link or not, simply because you didn't populate the url= parameter. When I saw that, PLUS the fact that it was a permanent link, I was like, "Well we don't need this anyhow." Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I've copied your script I see what's flagged. Nice tool that is! Thanks for the tweak, the tool and the explanation; I'm much obliged! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Lingzhi,
I applied for Questia's account more than 2 months ago and have not received any respond yet! I'm curious to know, reason of your ignorance in answering my messages!! Could you please let me know, what is your decision? Regards --DejaVu (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I seem to recall that you hadn't met the minimum editing standards.. is it.. minimum of 6 months and 500 edits, perhaps? I will check again in about 1 hour from now. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Also as I wrote in Wikipedia talk:Questia before, my Useraname has been changed.--DejaVu (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Its a horrific read. A huge achievement in dept of coverage. Deeply moved. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! I have to say, some aspects of it turned my stomach as well. But I think Wikipedia's coverage of an important topic has been improved, and I am glad for that...thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Get this through the review process... slowly but steadily. You have been very cautious so far, fair play; from here canvas wide and hard for input and help. I admire your approach so far; its such an important article. Ceoil (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, I was actually gonna sit back and let the CR processes play themselves out, responding to comments as they come, unless some Valued Editor begins disruptive editing. In that case, I plan to hide behind the skirts of as many admins as are within shouting distance... I say that because I tend to be impatient and a bit snippy perhaps, which would be counterproductive in this case. Thanks!! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Well you are the sort to generally get on with folks round here, so I have high hopes. Ceoil (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hah! Thanks... [Massively unrelated personal side note: You said "fair play" which reminds me of one of my all-time favorite songs.07:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Lingding do you have a problem? Why did you remove a verified and sourced addition? Before you even came here we had this. You do understand you do not have the right to remove it before we reach a consensus right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.187.61 (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Lingding do you have a problem? Why did you remove a verified and sourced addition? Before you even came here we had this. You do understand you do not have the right to remove it before we reach a consensus right?

Thank you for your message. The article is not about Churchill; the correct place for Churchill-bashing re India is Winston Churchill#Indian independence. Based on your... editing... I did add a link to that section. Thank you for your input... The Bengal famine article already mentions charges of racism against Churchill... Moreover, putting the Churchill quote in a big blue quote box is WP:UNDUE. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"putting the Churchill quote in a big blue quote box is WP:UNDUE" Dickling, no. We have had this quote in STANDARD WIKIPEDIA light blue background among others on many others all along, for years and years, literally. Then you suddenly think you can immigrate this article and push out the original content? You are deluded and we've marked you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.187.61 (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Song names don't get italicized, but rather in quotations. per WP:MOSALBUM --Jennica✿ / talk 23:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I've never done an album before, and am mildly unlikely to ever do one again. I just happen to like that album, and was surprised it was a redlink. But thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lingzhi. Your editing on the Talk:Bengal famine of 1943 is unnecessarily aggressive. I understand that you're proud of the time and effort you've put into remaking the page and believe me when I say that that is much appreciated. However, on Wikipedia, articles do not have only one voice and your apparent expectation that your work will be immediately accepted and permanently written in stone, as an FA or not is unrealistic. The best articles on Wikipedia, particularly on controversial topics, are those where there is tension between editors and the article is built from the give and take between those editors. The tension results in debates that result in better sources and better evaluation of sources. You have to accept that. Regardless, do note that this is an unacceptable personal attack. --regentspark(comment) 16:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. I am directly quoting a flat assertion; that assertion is quite frankly the dictionary definition of a pro-British POV. Do not label it a personal attack; either recant or disengage. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Your call. Exactly as I feared, you are demonstrating WP:OWN issues with the article. That's neither healthy nor productive. But you need to figure this out for yourself before you get into trouble. --regentspark(comment) 16:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Regentspark here, Lingzhi, sorry. I went through a small amount of hell regarding accusations of POV etc when I rewrote James Tod and then took it to FAC but these things have to be seen through in a spirit that is collaborative within the scope of our policies and guidelines. Sure, you can quickly dispense of the outright warriors etc but you do have to deal reasonably with the vast majority of contributors and, like it or not, Fowler&fowler does have an immense knowledge of the Raj era in India. Just stick to V, RS, OR/SYNTHESIS etc and give as well as take. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate what you've done in Bengal famine of 1943. It takes a lot of stamina to produce an article of that length and for that you have my admiration. However, it is best that you too understand that I'm not looking to throw a wrench in the works because I get perverse pleasure from it, nor am I attempting to hog credit for myself. I'm simply trying to make sure that an article created in user space—on a very important but also very contentious topic which has seen the major intellectuals of the day disagreeing—accurately paraphrases the sources, that it does not favor any point of view any more than a predominance of the sources do, etc. Please assist me in this task. I do understand that you are impatient. The revision will take time, several months as I've already indicated, and will require patience. While I myself am not much affronted by people's impatient outbursts, please be aware that they won't be doing you any good, nor hurrying the process one whit. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edits until now have been somewhat less POV than I expected, but I still expect a soft, fuzzy light to be thrown on the role of the British military in particular (do you have a military background?) and the Raj in general. By that time, however, I will probably have been blocked & then quit Wikipedia... But I do admit, after your initial very strong declaration of pro-military pro-Britain POV (i.e., "In fact to cast it as military history is to buy into a POV out there that exceptional war time conditions allowed the famine to fly under the radar of British responsibility ") your edits (so far) have left room for doubt.

I strongly invite you to compare the former version of our Wikipedia article to the writings of Bowbrick. Bowbrick has a sort of a one-stop shopping POV blast article (I think it's on on academia.edu?). I can email it to you. The assertions are the same. Hell, the fucking article structure is the same. Looking only at article text, article structure etc., under ordinary circumstances, I'd be willing to buy into the idea that AidWorker is merely a Bowbrick disciple/adherent/student/fan of sorts... but given that his Talk page bursts adhere even to the mindset of Bowbrick ("millions of lives are at risk") I flatly believe it is Bowbrick himself. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You have just pinged me but I am completely confused regarding why that is so. I've not looked at the article since you dumped your sandbox version there. I'd never knowingly edited it previously and I've deliberately kept off the talk page for now. Whoever Bowbrick and/or AidWorker may be, surely we're supposed to be doing the usual V, RS, DUE, NPOV etc? If, as you intimate, Bowbrick and AidWorker are one and the same then one or both of two things apply: (a) WP:SPI and (b) stick to the policies and guidelines, which will neutralise any shenanigans. Are those policies/guidelines perfect? Probably not. Do they have consensus? Yes. - Sitush (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I pinged you because I don't want my words to disappear down a memory hole. I'm hoping at least someone over there in the India articles area is neither a British apologist, nor an angry Indian/Bangladeshi nationalist, nor a Westerner who is simply a Churchill-hater. I'm sure at least one such person must exists somewhere, though I admit I am having some difficulties spotting one. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.--regentspark(--regentspark(comment) 00:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943. Lingzhi, this sort of low grade harassment has to stop. As also must this. You cannot ascribe motives to other editors and instead you must either engage with them in good faith or take your editing elsewhere. You say "I will probably have been blocked & then quit Wikipedia" and, by all appearances, that's exactly what you're working toward. You've put in a great deal of effort into this article and it would be a shame to see it go down the tubes just because you're unwilling to assume the good faith of other editors but that's what's going to happen unless something changes. Your call entirely.regentspark(comment) 00:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Nice of you to drop in. You keep saying I'm unwilling to AGF. I keep telling you, F&F very explicitly declared his POV. He said: 1) The famine is only obliquely related to the war. 2) Anyone who says otherwise is buying into a POV that the famine was due to Great Britain's negligence. There are only two statements there; it isn't a huge chain of logic. It's a case of "All Greeks have beards, Zeno is a Greek (so Zeno has a beard). Specifically, he is saying that "Since the famine is only obliquely related to the war, and since people who say it is not are falling into a POV that GB bears responsibility, therefore, Great Britain bears no responsibility for the famine," I am not saying crazy wild-eyed rant-like things here. I am taking two of his flat statements and adding them up to their straightforward conclusion. He has declared a POV. So... should I AGF for someone who explicitly declared a POV? How does that work? "Hi there, I see you have explicitly declared a POV, but hey, I'm just gonna assume that you have absolutely NO POV"....please. I am dying to know. How do I "AGF" someone who has explicitly declared a POV? How? How it is done? What method should I use? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Lingzhi, I don't know anything about this, but I read Fowler's statement—"to cast it as military history is to buy into a POV out there that exceptional war time conditions allowed the famine to fly under the radar of British responsibility"—to mean the opposite of the way you interpret it.

To see this as military history is to see it from the British point of view. The people who starved had no connection to the war in Europe. The famine was not a military situation in any sense for them. That is how I read the implications of that statement. SarahSV(talk) 01:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

^^ Me, too ^^. And, for what it is worth, we all have POVs, even if we think we do not. You're no exception to that, Lingzhi: you've read the sources and you have formed an opinion. That's a point of view. - Sitush (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Typing with cellphone. No no the view that the war caused the famine is the view that GB either deliberately let peasants starve, or at least was callous. Read the article (before it goes thru too many changes) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Fowler is saying that to cast this as military history is to see things from the British point of view (whether that's to say they let people starve, or they more actively caused it, is a separate issue). The lead also describes it, in my opinion, from a British (or European or Western) perspective. SarahSV(talk) 02:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush:, @SlimVirgin: At the risk of repeating myself, alas, what you are saying is the complete opposite of what everyone else says. Please do read the "Cause(s)" section of the article; I hope that will clarify things. But thank you for being kind enough to help. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Lingzhi, I don't really care who does or doesn't have this or that POV. What I'm trying to point out to you, repeatedly, is that this constant low grade "you're going to do this anyway because you're a colonial apologist" is harassment and it detracts from a proper discussion of what should or should not go into the article. The wiki way is to engage with other editors in good faith and, if you believe the other editor is not editing in good faith, find the proper forum to shut them out of the article. Grumbling doesn't help - in real life or on Wikipedia. --regentspark(comment) 13:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what forum to go to, and even if I did know, I would be a little likely to quit Wikipedia rather than go there. I don't (didn't) mind barking at idiots who drag hosed up crap into FAC (back when I did content reviews), but I hate long drawn-out arguments with everyone giving tons of diffs until some set of admins or other make an arbitrary decision about who's right (or non-arbitrary based on friendships). I genuinely do not believe the regulars in any argument forum such as ANI would have the will to decipher this issue. So basically I am screwed. I will play nice and see what happens. Please do put your Thor Hammer block button away. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right about the "long drawn-out arguments". I'm going to suggest a different strategy on the talk page. --regentspark(comment) 14:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I was approved for Questia - I received an access code but I am unable to use it to login at https://www.questia.com/specialoffer. The instruction say "Offer ID" and "Promotional code" but I have only the access code that I was emailed and it isn't working. Seraphim System(talk) 02:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)